xanadian:I'm afraid this is one of those instances where I'll have to side with the conservatards...

Check out the timeline further down in the article. Sure, he mentions "terror" on Sept. 12, but refuses to tie in the Libya incident as a terrorist attack on Sept. 25.

According to the article, anyway.

The speech he referenced was absolutely, positively about the incident in question, first off.

Second, the paragraph in question:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

The text very clearly refers the incident in question as an act of terror.

Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly clear that the attack did, indeed, use an existing protest as cover/excuse to begin the operation.

WorldCitizen:Do those poor Republicans, always being picked on, need the help of the moderator? Can they not pick themselves up and not rely on someone else to do their work and make their case for them?

its interesting, isn't it? the contradictions are glaringly obvious: the big, strong John Galt types felled by a tiny little moderator just doing her job....and they can't get past it. they lost - they KNOW they lost...but they can't admit it. and if you can't admit you lost, that you failed, then how can you learn and improve? you can't. so they fail again...and again...and again....

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats:xanadian: I'm afraid this is one of those instances where I'll have to side with the conservatards...

Check out the timeline further down in the article. Sure, he mentions "terror" on Sept. 12, but refuses to tie in the Libya incident as a terrorist attack on Sept. 25.

According to the article, anyway.

The speech he referenced was absolutely, positively about the incident in question, first off.

Second, the paragraph in question:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

The text very clearly refers the incident in question as an act of terror.

Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly clear that the attack did, indeed, use an existing protest as cover/excuse to begin the operation.

This is what it means to understand something in context.

So why the hell did Crowley backtrack!? She's just making things worse, and now the conservatives have something ELSE to use. Her own goddamn admission! :/

xanadian:So why the hell did Crowley backtrack!? She's just making things worse, and now the conservatives have something ELSE to use. Her own goddamn admission! :/

I don't know the answer to that. I did, however, notice that she was quite concerned with how she appeared in the context as a moderator, instead of being mostly concerned with making sure the debate was informative. I think she was conflicted about her role.

xanadian:I'm afraid this is one of those instances where I'll have to side with the conservatards...

Check out the timeline further down in the article. Sure, he mentions "terror" on Sept. 12, but refuses to tie in the Libya incident as a terrorist attack on Sept. 25.

According to the article, anyway.

This has been a winning strategy for the GOP. I have to hand it to them. Romney comes off looking like a complete asshole, politicizing the Libya ambassador killing, and they turn it around into a "Obama got the ambassador killed so you see, Romney politicizing it wasn't that bad after all" thing.

Weaver95:Rush is saying that the GOP won, that debates don't matter and that you are stupid if you think Obama beat Romney. Oh, and that debates don't matter, but Romney won and Obama was stuttering and sweating and failure incarnate...not that it mattered because MODERATORS and the lying, so many lies and none of it mattered but if it did matter than Romney won.

I liked the part when he implied Fox News was part of a media conspiracy to make Romney look bad. Then he started saying the problem was that people were comparing Obama to Romney, when what they should have been doing was comparing Obama to Obama's performance in 2008, and since he wasn't as good last night as he was in 2008, that means Romney won.

This has been a winning strategy for the GOP. I have to hand it to them. Romney comes off looking like a complete asshole, politicizing the Libya ambassador killing, and they turn it around into a "Obama got the ambassador killed so you see, Romney politicizing it wasn't that bad after all" thing.

Kudos, GOP. Kudos.

Romney did NOT like being called out by Obama on that score. He was generally pissed off for the majority of the debate but getting a lecture from the President about where the lines are drawn did NOT go over well with Romney at all.

ShawnDoc:Weaver95: Rush is saying that the GOP won, that debates don't matter and that you are stupid if you think Obama beat Romney. Oh, and that debates don't matter, but Romney won and Obama was stuttering and sweating and failure incarnate...not that it mattered because MODERATORS and the lying, so many lies and none of it mattered but if it did matter than Romney won.

I liked the part when he implied Fox News was part of a media conspiracy to make Romney look bad. Then he started saying the problem was that people were comparing Obama to Romney, when what they should have been doing was comparing Obama to Obama's performance in 2008, and since he wasn't as good last night as he was in 2008, that means Romney won.

Did you catch Limbaugh calling Crowley a 'journalistic terrorist'? Rush is really off his game these days.

Because after the initial bit, they hemmed and hawed for the next few weeks, without firmly declaring their findings or actual position on the incident. She took Romney to task on the actual lie, but confirmed the waffling of the administration. She gave them bullets for their guns, but at the same time handed Obama a grenade.

This has been a winning strategy for the GOP. I have to hand it to them. Romney comes off looking like a complete asshole, politicizing the Libya ambassador killing, and they turn it around into a "Obama got the ambassador killed so you see, Romney politicizing it wasn't that bad after all" thing.

Kudos, GOP. Kudos.

Romney did NOT like being called out by Obama on that score. He was generally pissed off for the majority of the debate but getting a lecture from the President about where the lines are drawn did NOT go over well with Romney at all.

The way I see what happened:

Sept 12: Obama did, essentially, all but stop short of calling the Libya attack "terrorism." He sure didn't say it wasn't....TIME PASSES...Sept 25: Obama essentially said, "the jury's still out."

I kind of wonder if Obama kinda-sorta backtracked on September 25. There's nothing wrong with saying you don't know all the facts yet. Because we didn't.

And this makes more sense, considering Obama's reaction at the debate, because Obama probably HAD meant that he thought the attack was terrorist in nature, but had to reel it back in a bit so he didn't come off as presumptuous.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats:The speech he referenced was absolutely, positively about the incident in question, first off.

Second, the paragraph in question:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

The text very clearly refers the incident in question as an act of terror.

Yeah, but INVISIBLE OBAMA said the following:

"No acts of terror - not that THIS incident was an act of terror, I'm just mentioning it today because this incident reminded me of actual acts of terror, that's all - will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

Weaver95:Did you catch Limbaugh calling Crowley a 'journalistic terrorist'? Rush is really off his game these days.

Nah, missed that part. I don't listen to him other than on the drive in to work these days, and even then I often skip it.

Ever since he failed to stop McCain getting the 2008 nomination, Rush hasn't been anywhere near as fun to listen to as he used to be. That, plus losing ratings/advertising to guys like Hannity and Beck has caused Rush to get more extreme. I prefer to old partisan Rush who was having fun at his job, not the new paranoid schizophrenic Rush who always seems to be on the verge of having a heart attack on air.

Elandriel:Because after the initial bit, they hemmed and hawed for the next few weeks, without firmly declaring their findings or actual position on the incident. She took Romney to task on the actual lie, but confirmed the waffling of the administration. She gave them bullets for their guns, but at the same time handed Obama a grenade.

Yeah, that. But I don't think it was "waffling." I still think Obama reeled it back a bit. He probably didn't want to come off as being 'OMG TURRIST!' without knowing all the facts first.

kronicfeld:EnviroDude: Even the NFL had the decency to pull the replacement ref that was a Saints fan from officiating the Saints game. To expect as much courtesy in our debates, well, that is asking tooo much.

When you best hope of a win is to tag team with the moderator, then you really don't have much to run on;

Get a new line.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7378391/79971963#c79971963

EnviroDude [TotalFark] 2012-10-12 12:46:33 PM

oldfarthenry: Poor Ryan. He spent hours in the gym doing all those crunchies & reps only to get slapped into submission by Biden's liver-spotted dick.

Considering that Martha Radzattz and Biden double teamed him, Ryan didn't do bad. I suppose if he had told Biden to STFU, then the left would have had puppies for him dissing the VP. Radzattz should have controlled the debate, but as she is in titz deep in the Obama campaign, you wouldn't expect anything less.

As I was told in High School by my coach, "When you are biatchin' about the refs or how the other teams acts, well, you're usually getting your arse kicked." Of course, even the NFL had the courtesy to remove the pro-Saints replacement ref from the Saints game he was scheduled to officiate. Guess having an insider to double team is fair if you are Obama and losing a campaign you were winning two weeks ago.

If Republicans want to turn the national debate towards a war of semantics on an issue where independents overwhelmingly support our President, and their candidate looks like he's using the death of an American to score political points. I can get behind that.

Aside from that, I don't even know what their underlying point is on Benghazi. Is it that the President "apolugized fuhr Murica"? No one outside of their echo chamber believes that nonsense. Is it that the President should have prevented the attack on Benghazi? I was previously told that no President could ever foresee, much less prevent, acts of terrorism, even acts of terrorism in which you receive memos explicitly warning you of said attacks of terrorism. Besides, you do know that you're own Vice Presidential Candidate voted to slash the budget that provides defense and protection of diplomats overseas right?

I think part of what I find so fascinating about the GOP these days is their absolute belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. there is zero doubt among any of them. the Democrats watched the first debate and most of them admitted that hey, Romney came out ahead. the GOP tho - Romney got his ass kicked last night and today ALL the Republicans are saying Romney won. they can't admit their guy did poorly.

that's amazing to watch...the almost fanatical religious belief in their own cause. scary sometimes too but still fascinating.

Weaver95:ShawnDoc: Weaver95: Rush is saying that the GOP won, that debates don't matter and that you are stupid if you think Obama beat Romney. Oh, and that debates don't matter, but Romney won and Obama was stuttering and sweating and failure incarnate...not that it mattered because MODERATORS and the lying, so many lies and none of it mattered but if it did matter than Romney won.

I liked the part when he implied Fox News was part of a media conspiracy to make Romney look bad. Then he started saying the problem was that people were comparing Obama to Romney, when what they should have been doing was comparing Obama to Obama's performance in 2008, and since he wasn't as good last night as he was in 2008, that means Romney won.

Did you catch Limbaugh calling Crowley a 'journalistic terrorist'? Rush is really off his game these days.

She would have let it go (like every other falsehood or truthy point made that night) if Romney hadn't tried to challenge Obama on it. She was merely trying to facilitate the debate and not let two minutes get wasted on arguing over an easily verifiable fact.

It's Romney's fault. He doubled down and is now biatching that the dealer outdrew him on his two seventeens.

The tragedy is that Candy did a really good job and will never be allowed to moderate another debate. She covered a lot of issues, got the candidates actually debating with each other rather than spouting talking points to the TV, and wouldn't allow them to pivot. And on top of that, she had to work with the town hall style where it's easiest for candidates to pivot. Even conservative commentator George Will called the debate the best in history.

Weaver95:I think part of what I find so fascinating about the GOP these days is their absolute belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. there is zero doubt among any of them. the Democrats watched the first debate and most of them admitted that hey, Romney came out ahead. the GOP tho - Romney got his ass kicked last night and today ALL the Republicans are saying Romney won. they can't admit their guy did poorly.

that's amazing to watch...the almost fanatical religious belief in their own cause. scary sometimes too but still fascinating.

In judging this method of fixing belief, which may be called the method of authority, we must, in the first place, allow its immeasurable mental and moral superiority to the method of tenacity. Its success is proportionately greater; and, in fact, it has over and over again worked the most majestic results. The mere structures of stone which it has caused to be put together -- in Siam, for example, in Egypt, and in Europe -- have many of them a sublimity hardly more than rivaled by the greatest works of Nature. And, except the geological epochs, there are no periods of time so vast as those which are measured by some of these organized faiths. If we scrutinize the matter closely, we shall find that there has not been one of their creeds which has remained always the same; yet the change is so slow as to be imperceptible during one person's life, so that individual belief remains sensibly fixed. For the mass of mankind, then, there is perhaps no better method than this. If it is their highest impulse to be intellectual slaves, then slaves they ought to remain.

wooden_badger:Weaver95: ShawnDoc: Weaver95: Rush is saying that the GOP won, that debates don't matter and that you are stupid if you think Obama beat Romney. Oh, and that debates don't matter, but Romney won and Obama was stuttering and sweating and failure incarnate...not that it mattered because MODERATORS and the lying, so many lies and none of it mattered but if it did matter than Romney won.

I liked the part when he implied Fox News was part of a media conspiracy to make Romney look bad. Then he started saying the problem was that people were comparing Obama to Romney, when what they should have been doing was comparing Obama to Obama's performance in 2008, and since he wasn't as good last night as he was in 2008, that means Romney won.

Did you catch Limbaugh calling Crowley a 'journalistic terrorist'? Rush is really off his game these days.